Thursday, 31 October 2019

A ‘Scheer’ conservative conundrum


Despite the fact that the Conservative party under Andrew Scheer won more seats and the popular vote, they were unable to form a majority government. Do we need a new leader or a change in policies?
The last election was devoid of debate on the real issues. All parties had their agenda defined by a climate change narrative which has become the basis for economic as well as social debates. The left has used rhetoric branding every conservative policy as far right and therefore against Canadian values. Identity politics has become the main starting point for any debate. Political correctness defines what and how governments should create and implement policies. In that environment it is very difficult for a conservative leader to express himself without being seen as being a bigot, a xenophobe and be branded by other disparaging epithets.
Well before the last election, the Liberals helped by the media and the education system have been able to fashion the Conservative party to their image. Increasingly conservatives have been forced to move further to the left. For a long time the party was known as the Progressive Conservative party. Progressive means moving to the left, adopting many of the principles opposite to true conservative principles. A small ‘c’ conservative used to believe in limited government, the free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility an empowerment to solve problems. In this election, none of these principles were articulated and supported in the campaign.
I did not support Andrew Scheer in the leadership race. Not because I disliked him but because of his previous position in government. In Canada it is the Speaker's responsibility to manage the House of Commons and supervise its staff. It is also the Speaker's duty to act as a liaison with the Senate and the Crown. His role was to be fair and impartial and therefore, in my view this position did not prepare him to be a leader but rather one of conciliator, and his campaign style proved that he was unable to put forward the party’s right to govern, In a climate where the previous government and its leader had been found to be deficient in many areas, Scheer was unable or perhaps unwilling to attack his opponents. In fact he allowed himself to be attacked on his social views and his citizenship.
Under Scheer’s leadership the party did not differentiate itself enough to win the large cities electorate and more women voters. Economic policies were not articulated properly and used the old boutique taxation policies. Climate change which was a main electoral issue was not addressed properly with clearly defined policies and was left to a Swedish juvenile to dictate how adults should vote. There was no attack on the Prime Minister’s ethical and contemptuous behavior.
Scheer never addressed Quebec’s Bill 21, which banned religious symbols. This Bill which many found to be of a racist nature was never contrasted with attacks on his religious belief. He was attacked for not attending a Pride Parade, by no other than a former Conservative operative. The question is when did attending a parade become a prerequisite to be Prime Minister? Especially when the organizers of such a parade have banned organizations from taking part when they wanted to do so. Freedom of speech today is defined only by the left, and Scheer did not protect this right. Hate speech should never be condoned, but we should not allow others to define us through accusations of bias and bigotry when no such thing is being imposed. The Conservative Party of Canada abides by past laws and has never stopped defending them. In a democracy we still have the right to have beliefs without infringing on other people’s beliefs.
The conundrum for the Conservative Party is not whether they should choose a new leader, but rather what it stands for in the future.  A change in leadership does not require a change in individual or personality, but rather requires a change in beliefs and policies. Does the party believe in progressive ideas or does it go back to true conservative principles as mentioned above? More importantly once that determination has been made, does the party find someone who can articulate and defend these principles?
The party has some months to ponder these questions, the membership should clearly think about the country as a whole and decide whether the Conservative party is prepared to unite the country or leave it to the left to continue their policies of division to get re-elected.

Friday, 25 October 2019

2019 Canadian Elections- Post Mortem


On October 21, 2019, Canadians decided to elect a minority Liberal government, despite the failures of four years under a Trudeau leadership. The Liberal Party got fewer votes and seats than when they started the campaign. They have but one seat in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and yet in his first speech Trudeau said that he had a mandate. It is time to evaluate where the country goes from here.
For the past four years the country has been mired in a political division created by a vacuous and arrogant Prime Minister. He chose to lecture us about his ideology and went around the world dressed as a peacock to garner votes for a seat at the United Nations. All the while he ignored some basic principles of government, working for the good of the country. His policies based on a desire to placate environmentalist helped to destroy the main industry of two provinces –Alberta and Saskatchewan. Pandering to a constituency, too often misinformed and misguided, Trudeau proceeded in imposing a carbon tax that was unpopular, and costs jobs while doing everything possible to prevent the construction of a pipeline that would see the export of oil to Asia. The climate change policies of the government created massive unemployment in Alberta and alienated a whole population that was already aggrieved by his father’s policy of the National Energy Program. He succeeded to nationalize the Trans Mountain pipeline by purchasing it, and thus gaining full control.
The whole electoral campaign was a dud. All parties had no real policies but produced some of the worst rhetoric based around the so-called climate change. Economic and social policies were all based on a desire to limit Green House Gases. In fact the politicians may have produced more hot air than anything else. The Conservatives who had the wind behind their backs never got the electorate enthused about their platform. Andrew Scheer never used an attack strategy but in fact found himself defending some of his positions on social issues and his citizenship. He never defended his religious beliefs and values. When challenged; he never asked Canadians when and how attending a pride parade became a prerequisite to be a Prime Minister?
The combined left made up of the Liberals, Greens, the Bloc and NDP, campaign around the environmental issues, mainly the opposition to fossil fuel and in fact against the West, excluding British Columbia. Based on the campaign it is no surprise that the results were what they are. – a minority Liberal government. Despite claims that the first past the post system is to blame, the fact remains that the Liberals won because of the votes in Ontario, and the rise of the Bloc in Quebec.  It seems that Ontarians are shallow in their voting choices, albeit perhaps that they are misinformed or totally oblivious about economic principles, and the fact that Trudeau was found guilty of ethics breaches, and obstruction of justice. Quebec voters, on the other hand, are in my view the savviest electorate in the country. Quebec does not vote for the country they vote for what is best for them, and them alone. They benefit from and equalization system which is outdated and claim that they should receive more or they will separate from Canada. This separation sword of Damocles is now being touted to be the strategy that should be employed by the Western provinces; Wexit is in the making.   
Personally, I am not a separatist, because it does not make sense. The population of Canada is too small and a western nation will not have the economic base to sustain prosperity. We are a land locked region, and will require access for our trade. But given the first statement made by Trudeau I can see western alienation growing. His idea that he is going to reach to Mayors to represent him in the west is a preposterous and arrogant one. He must have forgotten that municipalities are the responsibility of provinces. To name Mayor Nenshi of Calgary as one of his possible helpers ignores the fact that the Mayor has become one of the most unpopular politicians in Calgary. While they share the same characteristics of arrogance and entitlement, in my opinion if Trudeau wants to offer an olive branch, he may have just made another mistake. For Nenshi, who has been searching for an exit to higher status, this may be what he is looking for, and to Calgarians it will be a fortuitous deliverance.
The country is about to see a move to the left never seen before, even under Pierre Trudeau. Conservatives need a leader that can articulate the needs of a Nation not that of provinces. Climate change is a reality, but it should not be used for wealth redistribution. If we want to reduce GHG by means of a carbon tax, the policy must be based on a change in behavior and the use of revenues not to penalize but to incentivize people towards a greener future.
Conservatives as the official opposition, must be very vigilant about coalitions between the NDP, Greens and Bloc. Just like eight years of Obama left the country deeply divided. Trudeau has done the same in four years. His rhetoric continues despite his loss. His arrogance will determine his policies; therefore the opposition must focus on attack instead of defense. The next election may not be too far. To be effective the CPC must go back to small ‘c’ conservative principles. That is the only winning strategy.

Tuesday, 24 September 2019

Climate zealots: How dare you?


For over two decades there has been a growing environmental movement, mostly used by leftist politicians to create and agenda of wealth redistribution. Today we have reached the point where 16 year olds and other juveniles have come to the United Nations to lecture us about the upcoming end of the world. How did we get to this point?
Believe it or not climate is in constant flux. However when the narrative changed to the abolition of carbon, some people saw an opportunity to make a change to the way the world operates. Politicians backed by certain scientists, who may or may not be experts in climatology, pushed the idea that the world would end if we do not curb carbon emissions. Canada, who in my view suffers from an inferiority complex, was very glad to support Dr. David Suzuki, because it placed one of its citizens on the world stage.  In 1992, Pierre Trudeau and his friend Maurice Strong pushed the notion of ‘sustainable development’. Subsequently there were several conferences and agreements  including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, all these conferences produced very little in terms of real environmental results, and Governments saw an excuse to raise taxes on carbon products, mainly oil. However some opportunists, including Strong, Al Gore and others, made millions through the stupid ‘Cap and Trade’, a system which never reduced emissions but created wealth for the very few; the same people who travel by private jets and gas guzzling limousine, and may have the largest carbon footprint than  the rest of us.
Every level of government has been involved in the creation of environmental policies. While there have been many advances in technology and cleaner emissions, politicians have seized on the public’s demand for cleaner air and pollution reduction to increase taxes and redistribute wealth as well as enriching their supporters. On the other side of the equation there has been the silence and acquiescence of industries, which paid lip service to NGOs such as Greenpeace because they were afraid of a backlash. The oil industry in Alberta is in a virtual standstill because the export of its main product has been blocked by regulations and law suits by environmental groups.
The most troubling result of all this focus on global warming and climate change has been the indoctrination of a whole generation, which has produced a movement made of kids who are traumatised by the constant bombardment of the existential threat of climate change. Many of these kids are now marching the streets and even suing governments for their inactions. We have reached a state of mass hysteria among an upcoming generation, because adults have failed to address the real environmental issues, since they placed so much faith in the reports produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) while ignoring the solutions created by new technology.
Enter the product of this world wide indoctrination of our youth: Greta Thunberg of Sweden, the latest environment activist. She is a sixteen year old who may be suffering from OCD and other mental afflictions. She is now travelling the industrialized world to lecture politicians. She is sometimes accompanied by a group of kids and adults, and her coach Luisa Neubauer of One.org which is funded by, Bill Gates, Bono, Soros, Opensociety among others. With a number of other kids Thunberg came to address the U.N’s Climate Action Summit where some of their statements and threats are downright scary, and smack of the type of language used by youths belonging to authoritarian cultures. For example: Kamal Karishma Kumar of Fiji said:  “We will mobilize to get you out”, Greta Thunberg Of Sweden stated that the movement was unstoppable.  Canadian Marina Melanidis added “Young people deserve to co-design their own futures – and honestly, you can’t do that without us.” What is disturbing is that these kids are not well informed, but are ready to recite the mantra of environmentalists and leftist politicians, as lectured to them by an increasingly activist education system.
It is very disturbing to see how these kids were received by leaders like Merkel and Macron who believe that it suits their agenda to support these kids. While some people were sounding the alarm on what happened at the U.N, by contrast I like activism even by young kids, because I once was like them. The difference is I was taught to see both sides of the issue, I may have been on the wrong side of the argument but I never threatened anybody. All of us should be very concerned about this new manifestation. In my opinion these kids are being used by adults to justify the agenda that they have been unable or unwilling to get implemented. It is not so easy to attack kids, who are doing the dirty work of adults. To me this is mental abuse of a whole generation.  Increase in suicide and mental anguish among young people can be attributable in part to this mass hysteria of the world ending very soon, perhaps in 12 years, while politicians are making promises with policies to rectify the situation in 20 or 30 years. To show their support do not be surprised to see Thunberg being nominated for a Nobel Peace prize, just like the IPCC, after all the Nobel Peace Prize is now given to any leftist who has accomplished nothing.
There are solutions out there which are being ignored, and kids are being used to do the bidding of feckless politicians and we should be reminded of the words of George Orwell:” Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” and  “A generation of the unteachable is hanging upon us like a necklace of corpses.”

Friday, 20 September 2019

Blackface or Two-face


The left has used identity politics against their opponents for quite some time. The race card has been used to demonize conservatives and their policies. Racism is important, and should not be used to control civil discourse. The question is whether the biggest scandal to hit a Canadian political campaign will be discussed in its proper context?
For years the Trudeau bandwagon has been sponsored by the Liberal media. The weaknesses of the Prime Minister were never discussed; instead he was portrayed as the man who would bring us together at home and abroad. He was the toast of the world who knew nothing about him, except that he was the son of a former Canadian Prime Minister.
Over the past four years as Prime Minister, he has made promises and broken them. He is the only PM who has been found guilty of breaking the code of ethics, not once but twice. His mantra to include First nations into the national construct, with his Reconciliation Agenda, has backfired when he fired the first Indigenous Attorney General. Always accusing conservatives of being misogynist and touting equality for women, he dismissed and ejected two female Ministers from his cabinet and party. Always using his father’s multicultural policies, he created a brand of diversity that he has now succeeded in destroying.
The diversity guru has been found to be a two-faced politician with racist tendencies. The revelation and publication of at least three pictures of the PM in a blackface has proved that he was not just the vacuous and feckless PM that many of us believed, but that he has now been found to be a racist. Liberals accuse many of acculturation at Halloween; Trudeau’s trip to India with his family dressed in Indian garments was an insult to India and its culture.
While every political columnists and pundits are now re-evaluating their assessment of the PM, I will go further into blaming the media for what the country has now been plunged into. In my opinion, the bigger question is why Canadians have not been told about the PM’s tendencies for so many years. Four the past six years they fawned over him, as he apologized for everything, to the point that an apology from him means nothing. Even this latest incident has him apologizing, not for his actions, but for his ‘white privilege’. He is a hypocrite pure and simple.
I cannot believe that we are even asking the question whether his actions would cost him at the polls. Without any tangible proof President Trump has been called a racist for his policies, Maxime Bernier has been branded a racist for questioning our immigration policies, yet with clear evidence of racism some Canadians are still giving this PM the benefit of the doubt. If this had been a conservative politician he would have already been tarred, feathered and then crucified.
As an immigrant and a member of a minority group, I am outraged at some reactions that I have heard and seen. Every person of colour should be offended by the actions that the PM thought was comical at the time. Remember that he was a teacher and he was twenty-nine years old. He showed a complete lack of judgement and sensitivity. Furthermore let us not ignore the reported ‘groping’ incident as we look at one of the pictures and see the position of his ‘black’ hand around one of the females in the picture. In my opinion, Justin Trudeau is a creation of the media; he has been a disaster and now a disgrace to the country. Why are we still talking whether he is still in the race to form the next government? Now that we know the facts, the Liberal party who supported him should be turfed out without any doubt, because they are equally responsible. To re-elect this government would prove that Canadians no longer value transparency, accountability and most of all condone the behavior of a racist Prime Minister, who was after all elected by his party to be their leader.

Thursday, 12 September 2019

Choose forward down a slippery slope


It has been four long years, and now Canadians have the opportunity to render the verdict on the Trudeau government. Make no mistake this upcoming election may well be the most important for decades, and Canadians have only a choice between two parties and two political ideologies. Right and left.
Most polls show that the race is close, between the Conservatives and Liberals, with the NDP, Green and others trailing. The problem is that except for a majority Conservative government, we are going to have a government of the left for left. A minority Liberal government will be supported by the NDP and the Green, despite their claims that they do not run to do so, because power sharing is too enticing.
While the mass media have spent most of their time focussing on Trump’s presidency, they ignored the failures of the Trudeau government. Yes, they have reported on the SNC Lavalin scandal and his costume trip to India, but have they really looked at his failures to keep most of his promises? This election is not about Harper, it clearly is about the Trudeau record of the past four years. We have a Canadian electorate largely uninformed about their own government’s track record. We have a divided country based on the size of the electoral vote in Ontario and Quebec. The West has once again been ignored and its economic base that provides so much to the rest of the country has been decimated by failed policies which have continuously been supported by an increasingly partisan judiciary. The promised sunny days did not materialized, at least in the eyes of many westerners.
In my opinion, Trudeau is going to bring back the old attacks on conservative’s social issues, and economic policies, while ignoring the fact that he misled the electorate on virtually everything he promised. There is no Liberal foreign policy, except for the $6 billion given away as aid to various countries to secure a seat at the U.N’s council. The economy is not as rosy as being portrayed; we have accumulated massive debts, which came about because Trudeau believes that budgets balance themselves. After four years of bad government, it is impossible to think of another four years of the same; if not worse should a minority Liberal government supported by the NDP and the Green. To placate its supporters, the liberal government will have to move further left.
Anything but a conservative government will see the country go down a slippery slope to the left never seen before; even worse than the Pierre Trudeau era. It is no coincidence that you see young educated women protesting cloaked in red like the characters in the Handmaid’s Tale, it is also no happenstance that Margaret Atwoods’ sequel have the characters dressed in green. We now have a generation of new voters who have been indoctrinated by a failing education system. They really believe that Canada is a better place because of our liberal policies. What they ignore, is that under the guise of hate speech laws, we are gradually being gagged and prevented from expressing ourselves in a veiled censorship of the English language. Future leftist policies will continue to increase the redistribution of wealth, they will dictate what we can and should eat, and impose other U.N supported agendas, as we relinquish our sovereignty.
If I sound paranoid, it is because I am. Canadians should have a good look at the Liberals’ past record. Before going to the polls they have enough days to review and acquaint themselves with the facts. Canada is not in a good place with Trudeau. The country will be further divided and the chaos of his father’s days will come back.
To ‘choose forward’ is not to go back to the future. In my humble opinion, this country has no other choice but to vote for a Conservative government on October 21st, I personally do not look forward to the alternative.